Personal property taxes on my business due by September 14th and

[Matt1970]

Given the utter inability to read or reason you've demonstrated in this thread, you should be careful with such comments.

Didn't your mom tell you not to be on the computer past 10 ?

 

[sixone]

Your conclusion was that "we're not all doing this together."

This was based on the talk radio talking point that the "poor pay no income taxes".

The information I provided shows that, despite the implication of that talking point that the lower quintiles are all freeloaders, they are not.

You will have to decide if you are more interested in sticking with your conclusion than basing it on facts.

You haven't offered any evidence that they do pay any income taxes. So you can call it a "talking point"; that doesn't change the fact as I stated it.

You also haven't offered any evidence that the information provided in your graph is "the big picture", as you earlier claimed. It's missing some pretty important and easily obtained information.

If you have some more facts, please feel free to post them. But if you'd rather stick to you erroneous conclusions, feel free.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You haven't offered any evidence that they do pay any income taxes.

That's because I never claimed they did. Have you even been reading my posts?

There are more taxes than just income taxes.

So you can call it a "talking point"; that doesn't change the fact as I stated it.

You can legitimately claim that half the people don't pay income taxes. You can't legitimately conclude from this that half the country are freeloaders. It's not true.

 

[sixone]

That's because I never claimed they did. Have you even been reading my posts?

There are more taxes than just income taxes.

And there is more income than what your graph shows. If you're going to try to argue facts with invalid conclusions based on incomplete information, it looks pretty weak.

You can legitimately claim that half the people don't pay income taxes. You can't legitimately conclude from this that half the country are freeloaders. It's not true.

I certainly never said that everyone who doesn't pay federal income tax is a "freeloader". Have you even been reading my posts?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And there is more income than what your graph shows. If you're going to try to argue facts with invalid conclusions based on incomplete information, it looks pretty weak.

The point of posting the information I did was to provide a better overall picture of how much various classes pay in taxes. If you have contradictory facts, feel free to present them. All I see from you is a lot of word parsing.

I certainly never said that everyone who doesn't pay federal income tax is a "freeloader". Have you even been reading my posts?

Yes, I have. It's where I saw comments such as: "The leeches are feeding off the system, not supporting it." Saying you called people "freeloaders" was actually me being generous.

 

[sixone]

The point of posting the information I did was to provide a better overall picture of how much various classes pay in taxes. If you have contradictory facts, feel free to present them. All I see from you is a lot of word parsing.

Yes, I have. It's where I saw comments such as: "The leeches are feeding off the system, not supporting it." Saying you called people "freeloaders" was actually me being generous.

I linked the facts in an earlier post that you partially quoted, but mostly ignored. "Parsing" is the perfect description for it, now that you mention it.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Is that you biggis dickus?

Sorry its Incontinentia.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

The big picture is that we're NOT "doing it together". If income tax doesn't accurately represent reality, then why are the Dems so focused on using it to protect their current and future spending? What other taxes are they interested in increasing?

I know what tax I would target, the progressive one.

You haven't offered any evidence that they do pay any income taxes. So you can call it a "talking point"; that doesn't change the fact as I stated it.

You also haven't offered any evidence that the information provided in your graph is "the big picture", as you earlier claimed. It's missing some pretty important and easily obtained information.

If you have some more facts, please feel free to post them. But if you'd rather stick to you erroneous conclusions, feel free.

You are guilty of sticking to that talking point as well. Ck keeps trying to point that its not all income tax, despite Repubs talking points( framing the tax discussion around income taxes, not all taxes), but everytime he does, you counter with.....income tax.

Payroll taxes? Try that one.

 

[sactoking]

What you call "deeper context", more rational, intelligent people call "basic reading comprehension", i.e., the ability to interpret and understand more than one sentence at a time. You apparently lack that ability, at least when your party propagandists feed you your thoughts.

I realize this is an exercise in futility, talking to the proverbial dining room table as it were, but let's give this one more try. I'll even dumb it down a bit and focus on just one little paragraph. Follow along if you can:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
​

What is the focus of that one little paragraph? Let me help: it's America's tremendous infrastructure. Look at the parts I highlighted. Great teacher -- educational infrastructure. Unbelievable American system -- again, infrastructure broadly: physical, financial, and educational. Roads and bridges -- more infrastructure. The Internet -- more infrastructure, more of our "unbelievable American system."

And in the middle of this paragraph about infrastructure, infrastructure and more infrastructure, Obama says "you didn't build that." Only a reading-impaired partisan tool will ignore the clear and obvious context of that paragraph and insist Obama really meant just the business, not the infrastructure that is the focus of the entire paragraph. Of course you just know that's what he really meant, his secret intent. You can feel it in your gut, you believe! Rational people, however, recognize context.

And by the way, as pointed out before, this portion of the speech did not appear to be written in advance, but was off the cuff. Both the transcript and especially the video make this clear. His prepared speeches are much more polished.


Edit: but if that's still too complex for you, let's get down to your level and focus on one, single sentence. This is the sentence immediately following the paragraph above:

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
​

That should be easy enough for anyone still struggling to understand Obama's point. We succeed because of what we do individually, but also because of the collective support of the society we live in, the "unbelievable American system". That should be a simple, obvious, non-controversial statement for all but the most mindless haters.

That analysis is good, and I won't say you're wrong, but I also won't say you're right. As someone who parses language for a living (statutory analysis) the paragraph in question is clearly ambiguous. Your interpretation is a possible one, but there are counterpoints as well.

For example, the statement in question is one sentence: "If you've got a business- you didn't build that." Given a plan-language reading it clearly implies that someone with a business didn't build the business.

However, we can't do just a plain-language reading of a statement out of context, we have to read it on the whole. "That" is a singular term which can't refer to "roads and bridges" since they're plural or "great teacher" since you can't build a teacher. It could refer to the "unbelievable American system" since that is both singular and buildable. There are two problems with that interpretation:
1) It's too far removed from the generic pronoun "that" to effectively communicate the idea that "that" is the "unbelievable American system"; and
2) To say "you didn't build that" impliedly states that you had no hand at all in the construction, which is incorrect as businessowners have been monumental in crafting the "unbelievable American society" both through their business actions and politically through lobbying efforts.
The conclusion then is that "that" likely doesn't refer to the "unbelievable American system".

You went on to contend that "that" referred to "infrastructure"; that contention also has problems:
1) Infrastructure was never explicitly mentioned, and certainly not in any context that would make the "that" statement readily apparent as the reference.
2) To say "you didn't build that" impliedly states that you had no hand at all in the construction, which is incorrect as businessowners have been monumental in crafting the American infrastructure both through their business actions and politically through lobbying efforts.

The President uses more imprecise language at the end of that same paragraph when he states "Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." Again, there are two possible meanings:
1) Government research created the internet and allowed open access which is something that private research might/would not have done; or
2) Government created the internet for the sole purpose of creating an electronic vehicle by which all companies could profit.

#1 is much more likely the intended meaning than #2, but it doesn't counter the fact that both #1 and #2 are potential plausible interpretations of the statement.

It's the same with the "you didn't create that" statement; your analysis might be correct in his intention but given the imprecise language, atrocious grammar, and lack of good context the other interpretation is certainly plausible.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Thank you for correcting my math. However, you haven't offered anything that doesn't support my conclusion. Your graph doesn't take into account non-cash benefits paid to "the poor" in the form of food stamps (21 million households), Medicaid coverage, and disability benefits.

Even in a recession, the poor are using "everything they earn to survive" with two color televisions, a cable or satellite feed, a DVD player, and a video game system.

OK, so 46 million Americans are apparently living in poverty according to your link. That's one sixth of the country. Are you arguing that one sixth of the country shouldn't have TVs, computers, video games or the internet? They need to have something to do, right? Have you ever been poor? Did you have any of those things? Did you consider yourself to be a drain on society?

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. That's a little over $15,000 per year assuming no time off. Let's give them a low income tax rate of 10%; $1,500 per year. Now they're taking home $13,500 a year. Do you think you could live on $13,500 a year? If you imagine $700 a month for housing and utilities and $300 for food, that leaves you a grand total of $125 a month for miscellaneous spending. Clothes, for example. Gas. Parking. Bus fare (to bypass those last two). Insurance. A phone plan. That all adds up. And it means they're saving a grand total of nothing every month, so if any catastrophe were to occur, they're on the street. Not good.

And let's consider the fact that some places are just damned expensive. San Francisco or New York, for example. "Oh, just don't live there if you're making minimum wage." Well that's a good solution. But those cities still have fast food restaurants. Those cities have laundromats. Those cities have markets and bodegas and retail outlets and food carts and lots of other locations where your average employee makes next to nothing. How do we get all these minimum wage employees into areas with a high cost of living if they can't afford the most basic domicile available? Do we stack eight of them in a studio apartment and call it good? Do we tell them that racking up $5,000 in credit card debt per year is the American way? Do we convince them to take out loans for houses they can't possibly afford, watch them default and collapse the global economy?

The vilification of the people who do the shittiest jobs in society is beyond ridiculous. Every person contributes. Do you want to flip your Big Mac or spread dry cleaning chemicals on your suits or take your trash down to the dump? Of course you don't. But when the person who does this for you asks for a little extra so they can feed their kids, they're a freeloader? Part of living in a civilized society is taking care of the people who do the shit the rest of us don't want to because we recognize that they take care of us. We're all in this together, whether you're the CEO of a multinational organization or the guy who empties his garbage, and if you don't understand that basic principle, then you have no idea what it means to be an American.

 

[PingviN]

.... and people wonder why conservatives think he's a socialist.

Because conservatives obviously don't know what socialist means? I think everyone in the entire world knows why conservatives call him a socialist - 'cause ignorance.

 

[boomerang]

I agree that people should wathc the actual speech. I did catch this speech last night on the tube. What is driving the righties hysterical is a tiny blurb in a long extemporaneous rift whose theme was basically we are all in this together.

How about we just quit interpreting his words at all? Let's just respect the office and everything that comes out of his mouth is "the word"? All must be respected, acted upon and revered? That would make it all just so much simpler. Whomever attains the highest office in the land is to be worshiped and all that is proclaimed by that individual is to honored and obeyed? Is that what you really desire?

Righties aren't hysterical. Righties are doing exactly what the left claims is their sole domain. We're thinking. Now, I know in the fantasy land of the progs that only they are capable of critical thinking in any form, but it's time somebody told you all, you're not special and you possess no special skills in the thinking department. In fact your incessant need to proclaim the depth and quality of your reasoning skills raises some red flags that are psychological in nature. I'm sorry, but it's time somebody told you.

Obama's speech was one of his typical fired-up versions. The type where he tries to appeal to the common man that they are oppressed, that he is their Saviour and that our system of democracy is holding them down. He does this with regularity. It's how some politicians attempt to win elections in the times we're living in. Part of the reason righties bristle at this kind of rhetoric coming from a president is because similar language has been heard before at other times in history. At best, it's class warfare. At worst, it leads to nothing good.

All for now as I've got to get off to the business that everyone created for me. But one last thing. When the need is felt to defend Obama to this degree, it's because he really fucked up. In other words, we know that you know that he really fucked up. Sorry.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How about we just quit interpreting his words at all? Let's just respect the office and everything that comes out of his mouth is "the word"? All must be respected, acted upon and revered? That would make it all just so much simpler. Whomever attains the highest office in the land is to be worshiped and all that is proclaimed by that individual is to honored and obeyed? Is that what you really desire?

Sarcasm is a great tool when used cleverly. Maybe some day you'll learn how to do that.

Righties aren't hysterical. Righties are doing exactly what the left claims is their sole domain. We're thinking.

Not that I can see. Every time you guys post something, it gets argued against, and you collapse into a pool of rage, poor reasoning and false claims.

I'm increasingly being forced to conclude that the far right these days mostly consists of shrill morons.

Now, I know in the fantasy land of the progs that only they are capable of critical thinking in any form, but it's time somebody told you all, you're not special and you possess no special skills in the thinking department.

Well, I don't know that progressives are special, but it does seem more and more obvious to me that the far-right is. They are special in terms of lacking critical reasoning skills, especially when the subject has anything to do with Barack Obama. The phenomenon is on vivid display in this thread.

In fact your incessant need to proclaim the depth and quality of your reasoning skills raises some red flags that are psychological in nature. I'm sorry, but it's time somebody told you.

The red flags represent intelligent people who grow tired of dealing with irrational idiots. Most of your opponents are already quite aware of this.

When the need is felt to defend Obama to this degree, it's because he really fucked up. In other words, we know that you know that he really fucked up. Sorry.

He fucked up in the sense that he used an ambiguous pronoun, and he should know that the world is full of obtuse, malicious and stupid assholes who will attempt to twist his words around to try to make him look bad. To that extent, you are correct.

The problem for people like you is the same problem it's always been: you guys have been shooting yourselves up with the heroin of Obama hatred for so many years that you actually think that your high represents reality and that everyone else is going to want to join you in your addiction. You really think that this speech is going to cost Obama votes or whatnot. You don't realize that you already have on your side anyone who would care about your manufactured outrage. Nobody else gives a crap.

This whole situation reminds me of the Romney quote "I like being able to fire people". Another example of a quote that is taken out of context to make it appear worse than it is. I should search to see how the discussion went on that one. I bet a nickel that I'll find people like you arguing the exact opposite of what you're doing here.

 

[Matt1970]

The problem for people like you is the same problem it's always been: you guys have been shooting yourselves up with the heroin of Obama hatred for so many years that you actually think that your high represents reality and that everyone else is going to want to join you in your addiction. You really think that this speech is going to cost Obama votes or whatnot. You don't realize that you already have on your side anyone who would care about your manufactured outrage. Nobody else gives a crap.

You are right about the shooting part, but it isn't us shooting ourselves up, it's Obama shooting himself in the foot. You are starting to develope the same patterns as a lot of Liberals on here in that you just resort to name calling when someone questions anything that comes out of Obama's mouth as not being for the better of all mankind. You are just another hack.

 

[fskimospy]

You are right about the shooting part, but it isn't us shooting ourselves up, it's Obama shooting himself in the foot. You are starting to develope the same patterns as a lot of Liberals on here in that you just resort to name calling when someone questions anything that comes out of Obama's mouth as not being for the better of all mankind. You are just another hack.

What's interesting about this perspective is that you see new people come here and begin to interact with you and you see them all drift towards similar behavior. You then conclude that it's all their fault instead of possibly concluding that your behavior has something to do with it.

What you're seeing is simply the results of frustration when people encounter those who are acting aggressively irrational. The perfect example of this was when you claimed that by quoting 6 sentences from a speech that your position was somehow inherently superior to someone quoting 1 sentence. Any person who would make that argument is either extremely stupid or extremely dishonest. You can't fault people for becoming exasperated with that kind of bad behavior.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What you're seeing is simply the results of frustration when people encounter those who are acting aggressively irrational. The perfect example of this was when you claimed that by quoting 6 sentences from a speech that your position was somehow inherently superior to someone quoting 1 sentence. Any person who would make that argument is either extremely stupid or extremely dishonest. You can't fault people for becoming exasperated with that kind of bad behavior.

Pretty much. I always give people a fair chance to debate rationally, and I try to be respectful and reasonable when others behave in the same way. But it's become clear that the far right has just become the refuge of the stupid and hysterical. And I'm tired of pretending otherwise.

The issue here is not whether or not one agrees with Obama. The issue is simple decency and fair play -- properly presenting what someone has said. Matt1970 claims that I'm a "hack" simply because I defend Obama against his and others' utterly moronic attempts to twist his words around. But I don't do this solely for Obama.

Here's something I wrote six months ago on my own forum:

So I follow a link to a page talking about how happy the Democrats should be because they have Mitt Romney on video saying he likes firing people.

Only one small problem: context. They led this making it sound like they had a smoking gun to use in "Bain corporate raider" attack ads, when Romney quite clearly was not talking about that at all.

This is lame shit, no matter who does it. Knock it off guys, stop making me defend Mitt Romney!

Stupid and/or dishonest is stupid and/or dishonest. There's nothing more complex to it than that.

 

[boomerang]

Sarcasm is a great tool when used cleverly. Maybe some day you'll learn how to do that.



Not that I can see. Every time you guys post something, it gets argued against, and you collapse into a pool of rage, poor reasoning and false claims.

I'm increasingly being forced to conclude that the far right these days mostly consists of shrill morons.



Well, I don't know that progressives are special, but it does seem more and more obvious to me that the far-right is. They are special in terms of lacking critical reasoning skills, especially when the subject has anything to do with Barack Obama. The phenomenon is on vivid display in this thread.



The red flags represent intelligent people who grow tired of dealing with irrational idiots. Most of your opponents are already quite aware of this.



He fucked up in the sense that he used an ambiguous pronoun, and he should know that the world is full of obtuse, malicious and stupid assholes who will attempt to twist his words around to try to make him look bad. To that extent, you are correct.

The problem for people like you is the same problem it's always been: you guys have been shooting yourselves up with the heroin of Obama hatred for so many years that you actually think that your high represents reality and that everyone else is going to want to join you in your addiction. You really think that this speech is going to cost Obama votes or whatnot. You don't realize that you already have on your side anyone who would care about your manufactured outrage. Nobody else gives a crap.

This whole situation reminds me of the Romney quote "I like being able to fire people". Another example of a quote that is taken out of context to make it appear worse than it is. I should search to see how the discussion went on that one. I bet a nickel that I'll find people like you arguing the exact opposite of what you're doing here.

Charles, you have a lot of anger. Were you weaned too early or what?

 

[Bowfinger]

Charles, you have a lot of anger. Were you weaned too early or what?

Really, that's the best retort you can offer? Lame, empty, dumb. Just like your OP. And your phony outrage.

CK was absolutely right. One of the reasons P&N is so pointless is the dearth of intelligent, reasoned commentary from the right. It's not that liberals are inherently superior to conservatives, not at all. It's just that rational P&N conservatives are scarce, and are effectively drowned out by loons from the nutter fringe. This thread is a perfect example. We'd love to have an intelligent discussion about opposing points of view. Unfortunately, that requires intelligent commentary from the right.

 

[Matt1970]

The perfect example of this was when you claimed that by quoting 6 sentences from a speech that your position was somehow inherently superior to someone quoting 1 sentence.

Umm, ya. When you are trying to characterize the overall theme of a speech you certainly want to go with more of the content, but you go on thinking what you want. It one thing to have an occasional slip of the tongue, it’s another to constantly attack businesses and corporations. Obama has taken it to another level this time.

 

[Matt1970]

.

The issue here is not whether or not one agrees with Obama. The issue is simple decency and fair play -- properly presenting what someone has said. Matt1970 claims that I'm a "hack" simply because I defend Obama against his and others' utterly moronic attempts to twist his words around. But I don't do this solely for Obama.

Here's something I wrote six months ago on my own forum:



Stupid and/or dishonest is stupid and/or dishonest. There's nothing more complex to it than that.

LOL, problem is the only ones who have to twist his words to get their meaning across is the ones defending him. We are quoteing him word for word. No twisting involved.

 

[fskimospy]

Umm, ya. When you are trying to characterize the overall theme of a speech you certainly want to go with more of the content, but you go on thinking what you want. It one thing to have an occasional slip of the tongue, it’s another to constantly attack businesses and corporations. Obama has taken it to another level this time.

Oh my god no. A hundred times no. The quantity of text quoted (short of 100% or close to it) is irrelevant EDIT: to if you have captured its meaning or not.

How do you not know this.

I thought you were just being a jackass before. Perhaps I overestimated you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

When you are trying to characterize the overall theme of a speech you certainly want to go with more of the content, but you go on thinking what you want.

You continue to think that the quantity of an excerpt matters more than the degree to which it represents the whole. This proves that you are not able to reason. There's nothing more to it than that.

It's not that liberals are inherently superior to conservatives, not at all. It's just that rational P&N conservatives are scarce, and are effectively drowned out by loons from the nutter fringe.

At one point I'd have agreed with this, but it's not true any more, and is becoming less true over time. The more ignorant, stupid and shrill the right becomes, the more the reasonable people are abandoning it in droves. What's left are the dregs, the sort of people who repeat talking points mindlessly, distort quotes gleefully, and are unable to engage in even middle-school level debate.

It's pretty sad.

 

[Farang]

While that one sentence in the quote sounds pretty bad, in context Obama is right. I went to public schools all through university. For the most part my parents did also.

My grandfather went to college on the GI bill, after serving the government in WWII. My other grandfather went to medical school at a public university, with public loans. Both of these things are responsible for me having been raised in the middle class, and having been afforded a good education.

It's hard to imagine, if "government" was a person, how that person wouldn't say they had a hand in my success if I were to go out and start a business. I'd likely also be asking that person for a loan (via SBA).

 

[PokerGuy]

LOL, problem is the only ones who have to twist his words to get their meaning across is the ones defending him. We are quoteing him word for word. No twisting involved.

Don't you understand? Specifically quoting the words of the dear leader is "twisting his words", but correctly interpreting them to mean something completely different is smart and honest. Ah yes, dimlib logic at its finest.

 

[Bowfinger]

Don't you understand? Specifically quoting the words of the dear leader is "twisting his words", but correctly interpreting them to mean something completely different is smart and honest. Ah yes, dimlib logic at its finest.

OP = Idiot.

Nothing wrong with what he said, even though whoever posted the stupid clip tried to take it out of context.

From the Romney, "I like being able to fire people" thread. Hypocrite much?